Journal of Managerial Psychology

I need you, you need me: a model of initiated task interdependence

Simon Taggar Victor Y. Haines III
Article information:
To cite this document:
Simon Taggar Victor Y. Haines III, (2006),"I need you, you need me: a model of initiated task
interdependence", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 211 - 230
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610659560
Downloaded on: 19 September 2016, At: 07:35 (PT)
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 76 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2383 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2002),"Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review and proposed directions
for theory and practice", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 50-67 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415924
(2005),"Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance
in virtual teams", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Iss 3/4 pp. 261-274 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589046
(2005),"Structural interdependence, personality, and organizational citizenship behavior: An
examination of person-environment interaction", Personnel Review, Vol. 34 Iss 3 pp. 310-330 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480510591453

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

I need you, you

I need you, you need me: a model need me
of initiated task interdependence
Simon Taggar
School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 211
Waterloo, Canada, and
Victor Y. Haines III Received December 2004
Revised January 2006
School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, Accepted January 2006
Montreal, Canada
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to address two gaps in the existing literature. The first is why
some team members have peers depend on them for material, information, and support (referred to as
initiated task interdependence) more so than do others, ceteris paribus. The second is the
appropriateness of initiated interdependence given a team’s composition.
Design/methodology/approach – In an ex post facto field study, task interdependence in 267
members of 18 intact teams were examined. The teams worked on complex and inherently
interdependent tasks in a high-technology manufacturing organization.
Findings – Whether team members perceived initiated task interdependence was explained by the
degree to which members themselves depend on their peers (received interdependence), team
members’ belief in the value of teamwork, and team members’ self-efficacy for teamwork. As
predicted, both collectivism and past job performance were associated with self-efficacy for teamwork.
The relationship between initiated interdependence and individual effectiveness was moderated by the
team’s collectivist orientation, such that team members were considered relatively effective by their
peers when they were high in initiated task interdependence and when their team was composed of
collectivists; or when they were low in initiated interdependence and when their team was composed of
individualists.
Research limitations/implications – Although a one-factor test suggests that common method
bias is not an overriding concern in interpreting our findings, the possibility of common method bias
inflating the associates tested cannot be rules out. Also, we cannot say with certainty that exogenous
variables “caused” changes in endogenous variables.
Practical implications – Study findings suggest ways to resolve a lack of task interdependence
and the importance of team composition when considering peer performance ratings.
Originality/value – This paper offers a significant contribution to the literature on task
interdependence and person-group fit.
Keywords Collectivism, Team working
Paper type Research paper

Team member interdependence is a desired characteristic of high performing teams. It

can positively affect the level of cooperation and collaboration within a team, conflict
management, member satisfaction, and team performance (Van der Vegt and
Van de Vliert, 2002). In their meta-analysis, Johnson and Johnson (1989) concluded the Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2006
benefits of interdependence included improved learning, achievement, cognitive pp. 211-230
complexity of thought, and interpersonal relations. In most previous research, team q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
member interdependence has been considered a function of the task (e.g. Campion et al., DOI 10.1108/02683940610659560
 JMP 1993; Campion et al., 1996; Wageman, 1995) and “required, rather than optional”
21,3 (Kiggundu, 1981; p. 501). However, interdependence may also be considered a emergent
phenomena that is motivated by an individual’s characteristics, beliefs, and values.
This study addresses two gaps in the literature. The first is why some members
have peers who depend on them for material, information, and support (referred to as
initiated task interdependence), more so than do other team members (Kiggundu, 1983).
212 Differences in initiated task interdependence may exist between members in the same
team, or between members of different teams, that complete identical tasks under
similar conditions. Members high in initiated interdependence experience a sense of
responsibility to maximally facilitate and minimally hinder the task performance of
others (Horsfall and Aresberg, 1966; Thomas, 1957). Because it enhances the sense of
responsibility for others’ work, initiated interdependence yields improvement in
individual performance (Doerr et al., 2004; Kiggundu, 1983).
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

The second gap in the literature is the appropriateness of initiated task

interdependence given the team’s composition. Early research focused on the main
effects of task interdependence (e.g. Rousseau, 1977) and outcome interdependence
(e.g. Johnson and Johnson, 1989). More recently, Van der Vegt et al. (2001) have shown
that the relationship between individual team member task interdependence and
affective responses may depend on the degree of group-level outcome interdependence.
They suggest testing other moderators of the relationship between individual
interdependence and outcome measures. Building on this stream of research and the
person-group fit literature (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002), the main objective of this study
was to determine whether a team member is deemed more or less effective as a result of
the fit between his or her initiated task interdependence and the value placed on
collectivism by peers.
We address these two gaps as follows. First, we focused on better understanding
initiated interdependence as it relates to individual-level variables by drawing upon
theories of motivation. Secondly, we consider whether a team member’s initiated
interdependence is deemed more effective in teams composed of collectivists than in
teams composed of individualists. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model developed
and tested in this study. The study was conducted in a field setting where team tasks
were complex, but where the organization also noted variance in interdependence
amongst members.

Team member interdependence

Task and outcome interdependence are two basic forms of interdependence that
operate simultaneously within a team (Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert, 2002). They
have been studied at both group and individual levels. Task interdependence is a
characteristic of the work that is inherent in the task. All the teams in this study were
designed to be relatively high in task interdependence. That is, each member within a
team was required to share materials, information, and expertise with peers in order to
achieve the desired output.
Outcome interdependence is the degree to which group members are presented with
group goals or provided with group feedback. Outcome interdependence is high when
member motives can only be satisfied if the team performs well. For the teams in this
study, management used team goals and feedback to increase coordination and
cooperation among group members. In doing this, group members’ attention and effort
 I need you, you
need me

213
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Figure 1.
Antecedents and
consequence of initiated
task interdependence

was directed to collective performance instead of individual performance (Locke and

Latham, 1990; Mitchell and Silver, 1990).
At the group level of analysis, task interdependence has been found to have a
positive impact on group outcomes, including job satisfaction, team satisfaction, and
group performance (e.g. Campion et al., 1996; Mohr, 1971; Van der Vegt et al., 2001).
Similarly, at the group level, outcome interdependence has had positive effects on
motivation, learning, achievement, cognitive complexity of thought, and interpersonal
relations (e.g. Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Wageman, 1995).
We decided to focus at the individual team member level of analysis because at this
level the findings have been less conclusive (Van der Vegt et al., 2001). Some studies
have found member task interdependence to be positively related to job involvement
and job satisfaction (e.g. Kiggundu, 1983). Others have found a negative relation
(e.g. Brass, 1985) or no relation at all (e.g. Billings et al., 1977) to exist between
individual task interdependence and internal motivation, performance, and job
satisfaction. In their study of engineering teams, Van der Vegt et al. (2001) found that
team member task interdependence was positively related to both job and team
satisfaction only when the degree of goal interdependence in the work team was high.
Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2002) conclude that the inconsistent findings in
individual level studies may be due to the moderating role of variables at the group or
organizational level. We build on Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2002) by examining
the moderating role of a group collectivism composition.

Initiated and received task interdependence

Early studies of coal mines in England (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Trist et al., 1963)
looked at job interdependence where the second shift was dependent on the work of the
first shift. These studies found that employee morale, productivity, absenteeism, and
health where better when an individual initiated work for his peers to complete (first
shift) rather than received work from his peers (second shift). Later, Thomas (1957)
replicated these findings. Building on the differences in interdependence inherent in
 JMP initiating or receiving work from peers, Kiggundu (1978, 1981, 1983) defined a variable
21,3 called initiated task interdependence that applied to interpersonal interactions between
team members.
Kiggundu (1983, p. 501) defined initiated task interdependence “as the degree to
which work flows from a particular job to one or more other jobs”. Apply this to a team
setting; a team member high in initiated task interdependence directly affects the
214 activities of others (e.g. peers depend on him or her for material, information, and
support). It has also been suggested that initiated task interdependence assesses “the
degree to which one employee feels that others rely upon him or her to accomplish their
work” (Doerr et al., 2004, p. 913). According to Doerr et al. (2004), it captures felt
responsibility; a motivational factor that comes into play when one worker is depended
upon by others.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Initiated task interdependence describes only one half of the relationship. To

describe the other half, Kiggundu (1978, 1981, 1983) defined “received task
interdependence”. It is “the extent to which a person in a particular job is affected
by the workflow from one or more other jobs” (Kiggundu, 1983; p. 501). It is felt by one
employee when (s)he depends upon another to accomplish work. Kiggundu (1978, 1983)
did not find the same positive motivational impact for received interdependence that
was found for initiated interdependence. Few studies have differentiated between
initiated and received task interdependence. This is despite the constructs representing
perceptions of the degree to which coworkers depend on each other for
performance-relevant teamwork behavior (e.g. helping, supporting, and sharing
information), and the evidence of the different effects of these two types of task
interdependence on attitudes and behavior (see Kiggundu, 1983). Our conceptual model
holds that initiated interdependence is partly a function of received interdependence.

Antecedents of initiated interdependence

The degree of task interdependence may vary from person-to-person (e.g. Brass, 1985;
Kiggundu, 1983). Yet, little is know about what influences the degree to which one
team member perceives that the activities of peers depend on him or her for material,
information, and support.

Self-efficacy for teamwork ( H1)

Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) suggests that the motivation to directly affect
the activities of peers may be influenced by self-efficacy for teamwork. Bandura (1997,
p. 3) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments”. Self-efficacy for teamwork
reflects an individual’s perceived capacity to work effectively in a situation requiring
cooperation and coordination among individuals. Locke (1991) theorized that
self-efficacy beliefs, in conjunction with goals, constitute the “motivational hub,”
which represents the processes that most directly affect action. Research consistently
shows that self-efficacy beliefs contribute significantly to the level of an individual’s
motivation and performance (Bandura and Locke, 2003). Since self-efficacy influences
the motivation to engage in specific behavior, self-efficacy for teamwork likely predicts
the degree to which an individual facilitates the work of others (i.e. initiated task
interdependence).
 We also consider two antecedents of self-efficacy for teamwork. First, we argue that I need you, you
an individual’s collectivist orientation may influence their self-efficacy for teamwork. need me
A variety of researchers have examined collectivist tendency as a within-culture
individual difference with significant implications for cooperation within teams
(e.g. Breer and Locke, 1965; Chatman and Barsade, 1995; Cox et al., 1991), member
motivation (Howard et al., 1983; Hui and Villareal, 1989), and preference for social
interaction and approval (Eby and Dobbins, 1997). 215
Collectivism reflects an individual’s affective orientation toward working alone or
with others. Individualists differ from collectivists in that they devalue team efforts in
achievement-related contexts, value privacy, devalue the importance of teams for
personal well-being, and prefer high degrees of personal autonomy and self-sufficiency
(Dion and Dion, 1991; Wagner and Moch, 1986). They consistently behave
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

competitively across situations, even when they understand the norm to emphasize
teamwork (Chatman and Barsade, 1995). Because individualists devalue the
importance of teams and behave competitively rather than cooperatively, they may
be expected to avoid teamwork, be dissatisfied when working in teams, be
unmotivated to develop teamwork skills, and be less effective team players. As a result,
they may experience lower self-efficacy for teamwork.
In addition to collectivism, an individual’s past successes and failures often have the
strongest effect upon efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). If an individual has previously
received positive feedback regarding their past performance in teams, they are more
likely to possess higher self-efficacy for teamwork.
H1. Collectivism and positive past performance appraisal ratings will be
positively related to self-efficacy for teamwork, which in turn will be
positively associated with initiated task interdependence.

Received task interdependence ( H2a)

Teamwork makes mutual helping, information sharing, and other cooperative
behaviors more important to task completion. It also increases members’ expectations
of help and information sharing from others (Spilerman, 1971; Thomas, 1957). The
motivation to directly affect the activities of peers may be explained by the notion of
reciprocity in social exchange and by reciprocity norms (Adams, 1965).
Kiggundu (1983, p. 505) notes that, although initiated and received task
interdependence are conceived of as independent, “changes to one can lead to
corresponding changes in the other”. Consistent with this, social exchange theory
states that the parties in any given relationship want balance or fairness in that
relationship (Blau, 1964). Thus, individuals who perceive being dependent on peers for
help, support, and advice (received interdependence), will be motivated to reciprocate
through facilitating the work of others by sharing information, helping and completing
work well (i.e. initiated task interdependence). Substantial empirical evidence (e.g.
Settoon et al., 1996; Tsui et al., 1997) supports the norm of reciprocity (“the more I get,
the more I give”). This norm should be reflected in a significant association between
received and initiated task interdependence.
H2a. Received task interdependence will be positively associated with initiated
task interdependence.
 JMP Belief in the value of teamwork ( H2b)
21,3 The more members believe in the value of teamwork, the greater may be their
propensity to directly affect the activities of peers. Whereas some people may not
believe in the value of teamwork (even though they are high in self-efficacy for
displaying teamwork behavior), others may experience high instrumentality because
they believe that teams produce better results than do individuals working alone
216 (i.e. high belief in the value of teamwork). A belief is an assumption held to be true
(e.g. teams can more thoroughly evaluate options than any one individual can). The
“belief in the value of teamwork” is an individual’s belief in the value of teams in
general to accomplish work more effectively than individuals working alone (Shaw
et al., 2000).
An often mentioned drawback of teamwork is the difficulty a member has in
perceiving how his or her effort contributes to team performance, because team
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

performance is also based on the effort of peers (e.g. DeMatteo et al., 1998; Milkovich
and Wigdor, 1991). This drawback can be understood from an expectancy perspective
that emphasizes subjective probability estimates that effort will lead to performance
(Vroom, 1964). Prior research has already documented important links between
expectancy and instrumentality perceptions and effort in group contexts. For instance,
Shepperd and Taylor (1999) found that group members worked hard when they
perceived a contingency between individual performance and group performance and
between group performance and group outcome. Effort-performance expectancies
should be stronger when individuals believe in the value of teams in accomplishing
work more effectively than when individuals work alone (i.e. belief in the value of
teamwork; Shaw et al., 2000). Accordingly, because of greater effort-performance
expectancies, team member initiated task interdependence should be stronger when
members believe in the ability of teams to accomplish work more effectively than when
individuals work alone.
H2b. The belief in the value of teamwork will be positively associated with initiated
interdependence.

Consequences of initiated interdependence

The importance of team composition has not been widely investigated for its impact on
member or team performance (Campion et al., 1993; Guzzo and Shea, 1992). Examining
collectivism, which reflects a preference for teamwork, as a team composition variable
may be useful in understanding what members of a team expect from one another. We
examined a specific form of team collectivistic composition, the proportion of team
members with a high collectivistic orientation (referred to as team collectivistic
composition; see Barry and Stewart, 1997). It is expected that within a team, as the
proportion of members who report a high collectivist orientation increases, so will the
acceptance of initiated interdependence.
With respect to person-group (PG) fit, Kristof-Brown et al. (2002, p. 985) state that
“when an individual is compatible with coworkers, good PG is experienced”. Fit of an
individual’s values to the values of a larger social group predicts individual satisfaction,
commitment, turnover, and performance (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Jansen
and Kristof-Brown, 2005; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). The PG fit theory suggests that
collectivists will have positive performance when their team provides an environment
compatible with their personal characteristics. If the team is largely composed of
 individualists, we suspect that interdependence would be less valued and, subsequently, I need you, you
the behavior of team members who are lower on initiated task interdependence may be need me
considered by their peers to be a better fit to the team. Fit may impact assessments of
performance in that better fit results in higher performance ratings.
H3. Peer ratings of individual effectiveness will be an interactive function of the
team collectivistic composition and an individual’s initiated task
interdependence. The relationship between initiated task interdependence 217
and individual effectiveness ratings will be strongest when the team has high
team collectivistic composition.

Methodology
Participants and procedure
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Participants consisted of team members (64.20 percent female) from a Canadian

high-technology firm. The facility manufactures telecommunication products using
formally designated work teams that were responsible for production, problem
solving, and quality improvement initiatives. Within teams the demand for
collaboration and mutual support was practically constant. A great deal of
autonomy was provided to each team and member roles were unscripted, intuitive,
and based on a collective sense of the circumstances.
The firm was reorganized into teams four years prior to data collection. Nearly all
participants had team tenure of more than over six months. A work team was defined in
the organization as a group in which all personnel reported directly to the same
coordinator and interacted to complete team tasks. We verified the organization’s
delineation of work teams by examining departmental reports and organizational
charts, which indicated that members were grouped together to perform tasks and were
seen by others as being a team. The organization’s delineation of teams was accurate and
corresponded with the supervisors’ and employees’ views of who was in what team.
We distributed a questionnaire to all employees in the teams. Top and middle
management supported this study. Several internal communications from the Human
Resources Development Coordinator requested that all employees participate in the
confidential study. Employees were provided company time to complete the 20-minute
questionnaire. The 65.85 percent response rate to the survey (267 team members)
included 18 complete teams (216 team members). The modal size of the teams was 12.
The questionnaire consisted of self-report, Likert-style questions worded in French.
A translate-retranslate methodology was used to ensure that the translated items
accurately reflected the original items. The respondents ranged in age from below 25 to
over 56 years, with a modal age being the 36 to 45 years old category. The mean level of
organizational tenure was 8.34 years (SD ¼ 7:43), with the maximum tenure extending
to 24 years.

Measures
Initiated interdependence. Items making up the measure were from Van der Vegt et al.
(1998):
.
To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for information and advice?
.
To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for materials, means, and other
things they need?
 JMP .
To what extent do your colleagues depend on your presence, help and support?
21,3 .
To what extent do your colleagues depend on you for doing their work well?

Items were rated on seven-point scales, where 1 ¼ completely independent

and 7 ¼ completely dependent. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82.
Self-efficacy for teamwork. An instrument by Eby and Dobbins (1997) was used.
218 Items were:
.
I can work very effectively in a group setting;
.
I can contribute valuable insight to a team project;
.
I can easily facilitate communication between people;
.
I am not effective at delegating responsibility for tasks (reversed item);
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

.
I can effectively coordinate tasks and activities of a team;
.
I am able to resolve conflicts between individuals effectively; and
.
I do not feel I can take on a leadership role in a group and be effective (reversed
item).

Responses were made on seven-point scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.70.
Collectivistic orientation. Wagner and Moch (1986) value subscale of
collectivism-individualism was used (see also Eby and Dobbins, 1997). It was
designed to determine an individual’s affective orientation toward working alone or
with others. It was chosen because it allows an assessment of collectivist values rather
than norms related to collectivism. Items were:
.
I prefer to work with others in my work group rather than to work alone;
.
given a choice, I would rather do a job where I can work alone rather than do a
job where I have to work with others in my work group (reversed item); and
.
I like it when members of my work group do things on their own, rather than
working with others all the time (reversed item).

Responses were made on a seven-point scale, where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and

7 ¼ strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.64.
Past performance. Respondents were asked to report the global performance
appraisal rating they last received from their team’s supervisor. These ratings were
made on a Likert-type scale, ranging from inadequate (1) to excellent (5) overall
performance. The mean self-reported evaluation was 2.66 (SD ¼ 0:59); the range was
from 2.00 to 5.00. A limitation of this study is that we were not provided with access to
actual performance appraisal data, but the Human Resources Development
Coordinator verified that the performance distribution reported by participants
accurately reflected the actual distribution of performance appraisal scores.
Received interdependence. Van der Vegt et al’s (1998) measure was used. Items were:
. To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for information and advice?
.
To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for materials, means, and other
things you need?
 .
To what extent do you depend on the presence, help, and support of your I need you, you
colleagues?
need me
. To what extent do you depend on your colleagues for doing work well?

Items were rated on a seven-point scale, where 1 ¼ completely independent and

7 ¼ completely dependent. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.
Belief in the value of teamwork. Shaw et al.’s (2000) measure was used. Items were: 219
.
I believe teamwork can produce better results than individual efforts;
.
teams can more thoroughly evaluate options than any one individual can; and
.
working in teams stimulates innovation.
Items were rated on a seven-point scale where 1 ¼ strongly agree and 7 ¼ strongly
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

disagree. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.75.

Individual effectiveness. Items were chosen from a review of the organization’s
performance management system and from interviews with staff and line managers.
Items were used to measure peer assessments of the amount of effective team playing
behavior being displayed by each team member. More than 20 years of scientific
research has shown that peer evaluations are reliable and valid (Kane and Lawler,
1978), with the reliability and validity coefficients of these ratings generally being
significantly higher than supervisory ratings (Kremer, 1990). Moreover, in teams,
peers, rather than supervisors, often become the primary evaluators of individual
performance (Shaw et al., 2000).
Each team member rated his or her peers on whether that individual:
.
takes the advise of the other members of the team;
.
works with great care;
.
contributes when necessary to compensate for an absence or overload of work;
.
follows advice in order to correct a problem;
.
proposes solutions to problems;
.
offers feedback to others in order to help them better themselves;
.
shows initiative in his/her work; and
.
does his/her best to resolve problems as quickly as possible.
Responses were made on a Likert scale, ranging from almost never (1) to almost always
(5). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92. The mean evaluation over all eight items was 4.24
(SD ¼ 0:64); the range was 1.00 to 5.00. Convergence in ratings provided by team
members was estimated using the inter-rater agreement statistic (rwg,) developed by
James et al. (1984). Values of 0.70 or higher are considered indicators of adequate
agreement (George and Bettenhausen, 1990). The average value of the rwg statistic
obtained for the BOS was 0.75, suggesting adequate inter-rater agreement.
Team collectivistic composition. Team collectivistic composition was assessed by
computing the proportion of team members within each team who expressed a high
collectivist orientation. The proportion of team members scoring high on collectivism
was determined by selecting the top third of the distribution of scores. Thus, in this
study, team members scoring high was operationalized as those with scores above the
66th percentile of all collectivism-individualism scores obtained from our sample. The
 JMP number of individuals within a team with a high collectivistic orientation was divided
21,3 by the total number of members in that team. This yielded a proportion reflecting the
percentage of team members with a high collectivistic orientation and served as the
measure of team collectivist composition. These procedures mirror Barry and Stewart
(1997). The proportion was assigned to each respective team for cross-level data
analysis. Of the 18 complete teams used in the moderated regression analysis, four
220 contained eight or more individuals who were high on collectivism, eight teams
contained between four and eight individuals who were high on collectivism, and six
teams contained zero to four individuals who were high on collectivism.

Preliminary analysis
A preliminary analysis was conducted to assess the degree to which common method
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

variance may have inflated some of the relationships between individual-level

variables (i.e. belief in teams, perceived received task interdependence, self-efficacy for
teamwork, individualism-collectivism, and initiated task interdependence). Harman’s
one-factor test was conducted following the recommendations of Podsakoff and Organ
(1986). The use of this procedure is based on the logic that if common method variance
exists, the first unrotated factor extracted from a factor analysis containing all items of
interest should account for a large proportion of total variance (Podsakoff and Organ,
1986).
An exploratory factor analysis using a maximum likelihood solution was conducted
on all of the items comprising the individual-level constructs. Seven factors emerged
with eigenvalues larger than 1.00 (past performance was excluded from the analysis),
suggesting that more than one factor underlies the data. Moreover, the first factor
accounted for only 19.94 percent of the total variance. The fact that less than 20 percent
of the total variance was explained by the first factor suggests that common method
variance may not be a serious concern in the present study (Eby and Dobbins, 1997).

Results
Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics are in Table I. Path analysis using
LISREL 8.14 was conducted to examine relationships in Figure 2.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Collectivism –
2. Performance appraisal 0.03 –
3. Self-efficacy for teamwork 0.27 * 0.21 * –
4. Received interdependence 0.10 0.11 0.00 –
5. Belief in the value of teamwork 0.22 * 0.05 0.21 * 0.14 –
6. Initiated interdependence 0.00 0.22 * 0.23 * 0.34 * 0.10 –
7. Individual effectiveness peer ratings 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.13 –
Table I. Mean 14.56 2.66 35.89 16.82 5.90 4.59 4.24
Zero-order correlations SD 3.58 0.59 5.63 6.30 1.10 1.23 0.64
and descriptive statistics
(n ¼ 267) Note: *p , 0.001
 I need you, you
need me

221
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Figure 2.
Antecedents of initiated
task interdependence
(n ¼ 267Þ

Measurement model (stage 1)

Past performance was specified as being measured by a single indicator; therefore, the
error variance was fixed at one minus the reliability multiplied by the item variance
(Prussia et al., 1993). Alpha for past performance appraisal was set at 0.80 and the path
from the latent factor to the manifest variable was set equal to s 2 i 2 a.
A total of 22 indicator variables were used to estimate the measurement model: 3 for
collectivism, 7 for self-efficacy for teamwork, 4 for initiated task interdependence, 4 for
received task interdependence, 1 for past performance, and 3 for belief in the value of
teamwork. Therefore, a six-factor model was tested with the indicator variables
constrained to their variable groupings. All measurement model factor loadings were
greater than 0.31 (p , 0:05, M ¼ 0:61, SD ¼ 0:16), indicating adequate convergent
validity (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993).
The proposed seven-factor measurement model adequately reproduced the
correlation matrix, with a RMSEA ¼ 0:06, GFI ¼ 0:82, CFI ¼ 0:98, and NFI ¼ 0:96.
In contrast, the one-factor model used to assess overall discriminability poorly
accounted for the sample data, with a RMSEA ¼ 0:10, GFI ¼ 0:65, CFI ¼ 0:73, and
NFI ¼ 0:72. These results supported the multidimensionality of the proposed model
being tested (DCFI ¼ 0:25; p , 0:001). Therefore, the 6-factor measurement model was
retained.
As noted previously, Cronbach’s alpha for collectivism was below the common rule
of thumb that the coefficient should have a value of greater than 0.70 to be judged
reliable. It is possible that a set of items will be below 0.70, yet various fit indices in
confirmatory factor analysis will be above the cut-off levels. Alpha may be low because
of lack of homogeneity of variances among items and/or when there are fewer items in
the scale/factor (Cronbach, 1951). To overcome these limitations, construct reliability
can also be calculated using factor loadings and should be at least 0.70 when using the
formula below (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Jöreskog, 1971):
 
X 2  
X 2 X 
JMP
Reliability ¼ ðsl i Þ = ðsl i Þ þ ðei Þ Þ
21,3

In the formula sli is the standardized loading for the indicators for a particular latent
variable and ei is the corresponding error terms. Using this formula, collectivism was
222 found to have an adequate reliability of 0.75.

Structural model (stage 2)

Modification indices suggested freeing a path from collectivism to perceived efficacy of
team. After adding this path the model in Figure 2 fit the data without conditional
codes or other signs of specification problems. Fit indices for the hypothesized model
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

were acceptable (RMSEA ¼ 0:06, GFI ¼ 0:84, CFI ¼ 0:96, and NFI ¼ 0:95). Figure 2
reveals that all expected structural model paths were significant at conventional levels
(p , 0:05), therefore providing support for H1 and H2a-b. Of the variance in initiated
interdependence, 23 percent is accounted for by an individual’s self-efficacy for
teamwork, perceptions of received interdependence, and belief in the value of
teamwork. Adding a path directly from collectivism to initiated interdependence
resulted in worse fit as did adding a path directly from past performance to initiated
interdependence.

Individual effectiveness ratings

The moderating effect of the collectivist composition of teams was tested using
moderated multiple regression analyses. With peer-rated team member effectiveness
as the dependent variable, initiated task interdependence (unit-weighted aggregate of
unique indicators) was entered into the equation first. It did not have a main effect on
individual effectiveness which was the unit-weighted aggregation of the eight BOS
items described in the Methods section (DR 2 ¼ 0:02, p . 0:05). Next, the team
collectivist composition variable was entered. The collectivist composition of the team
did not have a significant impact on individual effectiveness ratings (DR 2 ¼ 0:00).
There was, however, a statistically significant initiated task interdependence X team
collectivist composition interaction (DR 2 ¼ 0:25, p , 0:001). The nature of this
interaction is shown in Figure 3, where it is evident that a high initiated
interdependence score of an individual in a team along with a team high in collectivist
composition resulted in the rate being assessed as highly effective. Similarly,
individuals who reported low initiated interdependence relative to other team members
were rated as being relatively effective in teams composed of a low proportion of
collectivistic team members. This suggests the need to consider effectiveness as being
a function of both team composition and initiated task interdependence.

Discussion and conclusions

In this study, team members depended on one another for successful completion of
production tasks. We found that initiated task interdependence was more than just job
design – 23 percent of the variance in initiated interdependence in this study was
accounted for by self-efficacy for teamwork, received interdependence, and belief in the
value of teamwork. We also found that individual member effectiveness was in the
eyes of the beholder – teams composed of collectivists rated individuals high in
 I need you, you
need me

223
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Figure 3.
Plot of the interaction
between initiated task
interdependence and team
collectivist composition on
individual effectiveness
ratings (n ¼ 216)

initiated interdependence as being more effective than did teams composed of

individualists.
This study underscores the importance of considering individual dispositions,
beliefs, values, and experiences when constructing interactive teams. We found that
initiated interdependence is influenced by three sources. Team members make an
assessment of their individual capabilities in the process of forming a self-efficacy for
teamwork belief (see Bandura, 1997). They also make an assessment of the extent to
which they depend on their peers, received interdependence. Each of these assessments
influenced initiated interdependence. In addition, our findings suggested that initiated
interdependence is influenced by individuals’ belief in the ability of teams to
accomplish work more effectively than when employees work alone.
Although task interdependence is generally considered a positive outcome, the
interdependent behavior exhibited by a team member may not always be perceived by
peers as effective behavior. This is evidenced in this study where member effectiveness
ratings varied with team collectivist composition. Our results show that the same
individual initiating similar interdependence behavior may receive differing ratings of
effectiveness from peers in different teams, due to the collectivism-individualism
orientation differences of the members who compose their team. Team member
effectiveness, to some extent, is therefore a socially constructed phenomenon specific to
each team. It follows that the most effective individuals across a variety of teams may
be those who can accurately assess the expectations of peers and who can adjust their
initiating interdependence behavior accordingly. This requires further research.
Our findings on the moderating role of peer collectivist composition are consistent
with Van der Vegt et al. (2000) who showed that a fit between high individual task
interdependence and high group-level outcome interdependence was found to produce
more positive affective responses than “low-high” and “high-low” mismatches. High
collectivist composition in the teams in our study may have increased outcome
interdependence. This is supported by research which has shown that collectivists
 JMP place greater emphasis on maintaining group harmony, and are more ready to sacrifice
21,3 their personal goals in order to further the goals of the group (Triandis, 1989; Triandis
et al., 1988). In collectivist teams, drives for uniqueness or independence are likely to be
viewed as immature (e.g. Kim and Markus, 1999; Triandis, 1995). On the other hand,
teams composed largely of individualists will prioritize personal goals over collective
goals (see Triandis, 1989; Triandis et al., 1988) should experience low outcome
224 interdependence.
McAuliffe et al. (2003) argued that, traditionally, collectivist behavior is perceived as
synonymous with what is considered to be “good” and acceptable group member
behavior, whereas individualist behavior is seen as deviation from group norms.
However, they found that preference for collectivist behavior was attenuated, or even
reversed, when group members were motivated to conform to group norms that
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

prescribed individualism. Specifically, when norms prescribed individualism, they

found that preferences for collectivist behavior over individualist behavior was
attenuated. Again, this is consistent with our findings because we would expect
individualist norms and lower interdependence when teams are composed of mainly
individualistic members.
That individual effectiveness was highest when collectivist composition was high, a
significant main effect for collectivist composition, suggests that collectivism is more
positively evaluated overall than individualist behavior. While tolerance for low peer
dependency on a member for material, information, and support (i.e. initiated
interdependence) seems only moderate in high or low collectivist composition teams.
However, intolerance for high initiated interdependence is great in groups composed
mainly of individualists. The present research further demonstrated that a relatively
high collectivist composition is important in fostering acceptance of initiated
interdependence. Previous research has demonstrated that there are strict limits on
acceptable (in)group member behavior (e.g. Abrams et al., 2000; Marques et al., 1998).
Finally, our results provide evidence that low initiated interdependence need not be
inconsistent with ideas of appropriate group member behavior. For example, some
organizations might use individual incentives and individual enterprise bargaining
agreements to promote a sense of interpersonal competitiveness within their culture.
By actively promoting a norm of competitive individualism, such organizations reason
that the collective output can be maximized through strong individualism. In sum, the
study presented in this paper provides support for the idea that collectivist and
individualist team composition influences the manner in which members evaluate
initiated task interdependence.
When an organization needs to increase task interdependence, one training effort
could be aimed at impacting team member self-efficacy for teamwork, which in turn
may impact initiated interdependence behavior. Initiated interdependence is also
partly a function of received interdependence. Thus, problems related to an
individual’s interdependent behavior, or felt responsibility for the performance of
peers, may also be a result of received interdependence perceptions. If a team member
believes (s)he has experienced low received interdependence, then interventions may
need to address the behavior of peers or the misperceptions about peer behavior. Low
amounts of initiated task interdependence may also be the result of a person not
believing in the benefits of teamwork. Again, this may represent a training
opportunity.
 In terms of selection, the use of structured interviews may be a strategy to uncover I need you, you
candidates’ past experience with working in an interdependent team environment, need me
which informs self-efficacy for teamwork beliefs. In addition, structured interviews
may assess perceived efficacy for teamwork. Collectivist orientations can be assessed
through paper-and-pencil instruments and may be used to select and assign employees.
With respect to performance appraisals, person-group (PG) fit could be considered
in future studies. The findings reported here suggest that there are benefits associated 225
with assessing each team member to get an indication of likely team dynamics. A high
initiated task interdependence member is unlikely to receive a relatively high
effectiveness rating from a team composed of individualists. This person should not
necessarily be dismissed by the organization as being a poor team player, but could
potentially be poorly matched to a particular team. Thus, a critical assessment prior to
determining interventions may involve determining PG fit, where fit is influenced by
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

the collectivism composition of the team. Resolving poor PG fit could involve choosing
acceptable degrees of interdependence for task accomplishment and then establishing
norms that maintain that degree of interdependence.

Limitations and future research

This study attempted to overcome some of the limitations of previous research on
teams, primarily through the use of intact work teams completing complex tasks.
However, it is not without limitations. First, although a one-factor test suggests that
common method bias is not an overriding concern in interpreting our findings, we
cannot rule out the possibility of common method bias inflating the associates tested in
this study. Second, we used self-reports which may not accurately reflect reality.
However, assessments of perceptions are important in cases of interdependence. It is
the perception of the situation, rather than the objective situation, that elicits
interdependence-based patterns of behavior. “An individual is not cooperative even
though objectively he stands in a cooperative relation to others, when he does not
perceive this relationship” (Deutsch, 1949, pp. 137-138). Nevertheless, future
researchers should examine the relationships tested here using more objective
measures of team member interdependence and effectiveness. Lastly, we cannot say
with certainty that exogenous variables “caused” changes in endogenous variables. A
longitudinal research design is needed to confirm our findings and establish causality
in the relationships studied here.

Summary
Work team success depends on the ability of members to manage their interactions
effectively (Morgeson et al., 2005). Our findings suggest that the propensity to initiate
interdependence is important in determining when the potential for problems exist and
how best to address dysfunction. If people in the team are not open to interdependence,
becoming an effective team may not be an immediately attainable goal. On the other
hand, high initiated interdependence may result in a team member being perceived as
ineffective when the team is composed mostly of individualists. Lack of initiated
interdependence when the team is composed mostly of collectivists may be resolved
through increasing:
.
self-efficacy for teamwork (e.g. by positive feedback on past performance within
a team);
 JMP .
received interdependence (e.g. rewarding such behavior); and
21,3 .
the belief in the value of teamwork (e.g. training program on the value of teams).

Too much perceived initiated interdependence in a team composed mostly of

individualists may be resolved through increasing the norm for interdependence in the
team in order to achieve better PG fit, or if the task requires moderate or low
226 interdependence, by having the team member reduce initiated interdependence,
perhaps by matching it with received interdependence.
Although this study has made a modest start to understanding team member
interdependence and effectiveness, perhaps its main contribution is to alert us to
several future avenues of research. For instance, at the group level, studies could
determine the impact one member’s poor PG fit has on the group’s shared attitude
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

toward its task, group affective tone, collective efficacy and group potency, and
ultimately, on group performance (Gully et al., 2002; Lester et al., 2002; Mason and
Griffin, 2005. Longitudinal studies could determine whether poor PG fit reduces
self-efficacy for teamwork and results in a downward performance-efficacy spiral over
time (Hackman, 1990; Lindsley et al., 1995), or spurs individual and group
self-management behavior (Bertolotti et al., 2005). Future research could also
examine the extent to which poor PG fit explains the discrepancy in supervisor-, peer-,
and self-performance appraisal ratings (Schleicher et al., 2002).

References
Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Brown, N. and Henson, M. (2000), “Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance
within and between groups”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78,
pp. 906-12.
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Social
Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-99.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. and Locke, E.A. (2003), “Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 87-99.
Barry, B. and Stewart, G.L. (1997), “Composition, process, and performance in self-managed
groups: the role of personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 62-78.
Bertolotti, F., Macrı̀, D.M. and Tagliaventi, M.R. (2005), “Spontaneous self-managing practices in
groups: evidence from the field”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14, pp. 366-85.
Billings, R.S., Klimoski, R.J. and Breaugh, J.A. (1977), “The impact of a change in technology on
job characteristics: a quasi-experiment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22,
pp. 318-39.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brass, D.J. (1985), “Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in
an organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 327-43.
Breer, P.E. and Locke, E.A. (1965), Task Experience as a Source of Attitudes, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, IL.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50.
 Campion, M.A., Popper, E.M. and Medsker, G.J. (1996), “Relations between work team I need you, you
characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 49, pp. 429-52. need me
Chatman, J. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 459-84.
Chatman, J.A. and Barsade, S.G. (1995), “Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation:
evidence from a business simulation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 423-43. 227
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991), “Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 34, pp. 827-47.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

DeMatteo, J.S., Eby, L.T. and Sundstrom, E. (1998), “Team-based rewards: current empirical
evidence and directions for future research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20,
pp. 141-83.
Deutsch, M. (1949), “A theory of cooperation and competition”, Human Relations, Vol. 2,
pp. 129-52.
Doerr, K.H., Freed, T., Mitchell, T.R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Zhou, X. (2004), “Work flow policy
and within-worker and between-workers variability in performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 911-21.
Dion, K.K. and Dion, K.L. (1991), “Psychological individualism and romantic love”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 219-29.
Eby, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997), “Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and
group-level analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 275-95.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
George, J.M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990), “Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance
and turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 698-709.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubein, J.M. (2002), “A meta-analysis of
team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as
moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 819-32.
Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P. (1992), “Group performance and intergroup relations in
organizations”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 269-313.
Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups That Work (And Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for
Effective Teamwork, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Horsfall, A.B. and Aresberg, C.M. (1966), “Teamwork and productivity in a shoe factory”,
in Rubenstein, A.H. and Haberstroh, C.J. (Eds), Some Theories of Organizations,
Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Howard, A., Shudo, K. and Umeshima, M. (1983), “Motivation and values among Japanese and
American managers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 883-98.
Hui, C.H. and Villareal, M.J. (1989), “Individualism-collectivism and psychological needs: their
relationships in two cultures”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 310-23.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 85-98.
 JMP Jansen, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2005), “Marching to the beat of a different drummer:
examining the impact of pacing congruence”, Organizational Behavior and Human
21,3 Decision Processes, Vol. 97, pp. 93-105.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989), Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research,
Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971), “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 36,
228 pp. 109-33.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Kane, J.S. and Lawler, E.E. (1978), “Methods of peer assessment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85,
pp. 555-86.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1978), “The integration of task interdependence in the job characteristics theory
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

of employee responses”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto,

Toronto.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1981), “Task interdependence and the theory of job design”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 204-23.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1983), “Task interdependence and job design: test of a theory”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 145-72.
Kim, H. and Markus, H.R. (1999), “Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural
analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 785-800.
Kremer, J.F. (1990), “Construct validity of multiple measures in teaching, research, and service
and reliability of peer ratings”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 213-8.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Jansen, K.J. and Colbert, A.E. (2002), “A policy-capturing study of the
simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 985-93.
Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M. and Korsgaard, M.A. (2002), “The antecedents and consequences of
group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 352-68.
Lindsley, D.H., Brass, D.J. and Thomas, J.B. (1995), “Efficacy-performance spirals: a multilevel
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 645-78.
Locke, E.A. (1991), “The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 288-99.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McAuliffe, B., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M.J. and Hogg, M. (2003), “Individualist and collectivist norms:
When it’s OK to go your own way”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 33,
pp. 57-70.
Marques, J.M., Abrams, D., Paez, D. and Martinez-Toboda, C. (1998), “The role of categorization
and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 976-88.
Mason, C.M. and Griffin, M.A. (2005), “Group task satisfaction: the group’s shared attitude to its
task and work environment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp. 625-53.
Milkovich, G. and Wigdor, A. (1991), Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal
and Merit Pay, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
 Mitchell, T.R. and Silver, W.S. (1990), “Individual and group goals when workers are I need you, you
interdependent: effects on task strategy and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 75, pp. 185-93. need me
Mohr, L.B. (1971), “Organization technology and organization structure”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 444-59.
Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H. and Campion, M.A. (2005), “Selecting individuals in team settings:
the importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge”, 229
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 583-612.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-44.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Prussia, G.E., Kinicki, A.J. and Bracker, J.S. (1993), “Psychological and behavioral consequences
of job loss: a covariance structural analysis using Weiner’s (1985) attribution model”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 382-95.
Rousseau, D.M. (1977), “Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction,
and motivation: a synthesis of job design and sociotechnical theory”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 19, pp. 18-42.
Schleicher, D.J., Day, D.V., Mayes, B.T. and Riggio, R.E. (2002), “A new frame for
frame-of-reference training: enhancing the construct validity of assessment centers”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 735-46.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 219-27.
Shaw, J.D., Duffy, M.K. and Stark, E.M. (2000), “Interdependence and preference for group work:
main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 259-79.
Shepperd, J.A. and Taylor, K.M. (1999), “Social loafing and expectancy-value theory”, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, pp. 1147-58.
Spilerman, S. (1971), “Raising academic motivation in lower class adolescents: a convergence of
two research traditions”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 44, pp. 101-8.
Thomas, E.J. (1957), “Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning”, Human
Relations, Vol. 10, pp. 347-66.
Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96, pp. 506-20.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M. and Lucca, N. (1988), “Individualism and
collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 323-38.
Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951), “Some social and psychological consequences of the
longwall method of coal getting”, Human Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 3-38.
Trist, E.L., Higgins, G.W., Murray, H. and Pollock, A.B. (1963), Organizational Choice, Lindon,
Tavistock.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 1089-112.
 JMP Van der Vegt, G. and Van de Vliert, E. (2002), “Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness:
review and proposed directions for theory and practice”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21,3 Vol. 17, pp. 50-68.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. and Van de Vliert, E. (1998), “Motivating effects of task and outcome
interdependence in work teams”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23,
pp. 124-43.
230 Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (2000), “Team members’ affective
responses to intragroup interdependence and job complexity”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 26, pp. 633-55.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (2001), “Patterns of interdependence in
work teams: a two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 51-69.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

Wageman, R. (1995), “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness”, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 145-80.
Wagner, J.A. and Moch, M.K. (1986), “Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure”, Group
and Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 280-303.

Further reading
Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), “Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 274-309.

Corresponding author
Simon Taggar can be contacted at: stagger@wlu.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Pascale Benoliel. 2015. Managing senior management team boundaries and school improvement: an
investigation of the school leader role. International Journal of Leadership in Education 1-30. [CrossRef]
2. Rhetta L. Standifer Dept. of Management & Marketing, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, Eau Claire,
WI, USA Anneloes M.L. Raes IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain, Claudia Peus TUM School
of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Ana Margarida Passos Instituto
Universitário de Lisboa, ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal Catarina Marques Santos Business Research Unit
– BRU-IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE – IUL), Lisboa, Portugal Silke Weisweiler LMU
Center for Leadership and People Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München,
Germany . 2015. Time in teams: cognitions, conflict and team satisfaction. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 30:6, 692-708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Nagarajan Ramamoorthy, Patrick C. Flood, Subodh P. Kulkarni, Amit Gupta. 2014. Individualism–
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:35 19 September 2016 (PT)

collectivism and tenure intent among knowledge workers in India and Bulgaria: Moderating effects of
equity perceptions and task interdependence. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 25:2,
201-209. [CrossRef]
4. Priya Nair, T.J. Kamalanabhan. 2011. Predicting unwillingness to report ethical infractions of peers: A
moderated mediation approach. IIMB Management Review 23:2, 81-90. [CrossRef]
5. Guido HertelStephanie T. SolanskyDepartment of Management, University of Houston‐Victoria,
Victoria, Texas, USA. 2011. Team identification: a determining factor of performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 26:3, 247-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Koustab GhoshCalcutta Business School, Kolkata, India Sangeeta SahneyVinod Gupta School of
Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India. 2011. Impact of
organizational sociotechnical system on managerial retention. Journal of Modelling in Management 6:1,
33-59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Prof Dr Rene Schalk and Dr Petru L. CurseuSmaranda BoroşTilburg University, Tilburg, The
Netherlands Nicoleta MeslecTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Petru L. CurşeuTilburg
University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Wilco EmonsTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2010.
Struggles for cooperation: conflict resolution strategies in multicultural groups. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 25:5, 539-554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Koustab GhoshVinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, India Sangeeta SahneyVinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India. 2010. Organizational sociotechnical diagnosis of managerial retention in an
IT organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18:1, 151-166. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
9. Tamara L. Friedrich, William B. Vessey, Matthew J. Schuelke, Gregory A. Ruark, Michael D. Mumford.
2009. A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team
expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly 20:6, 933-958. [CrossRef]
10. Yu-Liang Chi, Chung-Yang Chen. 2009. Project teaming: Knowledge-intensive design for composing
team members. Expert Systems with Applications 36:5, 9479-9487. [CrossRef]
11. Adrian FurnhamDepartment of Psychology, University College London, London, UK. 2007. Managerial
psychology: state‐of‐the‐art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:6, 610-621. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]